>X-Sender: e-scott@earthlink.net >Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 11 :50:09 >To: Maxine Singer , balberts@nas.edu, HLin@nas.edu >From: "Eugenie C. Scott'' >Subject: Re: An idea >Mime-Version: 1 .O >Dear Maxine, >I heard a follow-up to the interview you did with Richard Harris on NPR >recently: the caller said it was the "most cogent and understandable >explanation of what science was all about that she had ever heard." I also >thought you did a great job. Always good to get an attaboy! >You are right about universities having the option of accepting AP courses: Xaltech requires freshmen to take calculus regardless of the number of high >school AP calculus courses students have had. But I think this is a less >productive approach, it would not be fair to many schools and their >students, and politically, it is likely to backfire. >It is a rare AP biology course that skips evolution because the textbooks >used are college level ones, which routinely include evolution. It isn't >the AP courses we have to worry about, it's the regular courses which are >not as demanding. And actually, because what a student learns depends on >what the teacher teaches, and no one is looking over a teacher's shoulder, >a student may not be taught evolution even in a district that *requires* >it. Conversely, a teacher in a district not requiring evolution may indeed >be teaching it. So there is an unfairness to both the responsible teacher >and the student to make a blanket (and draconian) decision based on >district or state standards. Refusing to let students claim AP biology >credit at the college level because their *schools* don't require evolution >would penalize many students who learned evolution and reward students who >didn't! >There is also a "belling the cat" problem: how do you KNOW which districts >require the teaching of evolution and which ones don't? (Aside from the >problem of whether teachers actually taught or not). Would a department >want to write to every school district of each student who applies for AP >bio credit? Sounds like a nightmare for staff! > > > > > > >The political repercussions also need to be considered. Already the >academic community is portrayed as (in Phil Johnson's terms) "cognitive >elites", who hold themselves above the hoi polloi, are arrogant >know-it-alls who are close-minded towards any suggestion that challenges >their accepted wisdom. Balderdash, of course, but why encourage it with a >gesture that the nonacademic public are likely to interpret as unfair (and >defensive)? Already a substantial part of the general public thinks that >"some scientists are brave enough to challenge evolution" and if the >"establishment" makes a pronouncement about denying AP credit from schools >not teaching evolution, this will merely reinforce the idea that we're >trying to stifle a legitimate academic dissention. >(And you KNOW how Americans love underdogs! Waving one's degree around >tends to get you nowhere with the American public. They want to know what 'you SAY, not whether you have a degree from Harvard. In the past, pointing >out that particular creationists lacked legitimate degrees was not >especially effective in reducing their credibility. It was more like, "but >you haven't answered his argument!" And actually, the public is right about >this, but I digress.) >There *is* something that professional associations and science leaders can >do, but unfortunately it is much more difficult and time-consuming than >your suggestion. NAS, AAAS, and other organizations have to realize that if >they are going to make any difference in K-12, they have to be in it for >the long haul. As you said, there's a lot of talk, but we're not sure it's >getting us anywhere. >What needs to be done is to improve science teachers knowledge of science >content information, and their understanding (in John Moore's phrase) >science as a way of knowing (SAAWOK). I appreciate what Leon Lederman is >doing in Chicago, but that it trying to curry the horse after it's already >run out of the barn. We have to get teachers *in training*, before they go >out to take their jobs, because in-service teacher education is mop-up at >best (though I spend a fair amount of time on it.) What needs to be done is: >I) Work with science educators (the people who teach teachers) at teaching >colleges and other universities with education programs to "inspire" them >to beef up science content and stress the importance of evolution. There >are associations of science educators the members of which are not all dim >bulbs (though God knows a lot of them are, alas [not for attribution, >please...]) and some of them may be willing to take leadership roles in >beefing up graduation requirements for teachers. How many schools don't >require that teachers have majors in science to teach science? How many >education schools teach their own science classes, rather than requiring >students to get classes or majors in "real" science departments? Mr. >Rodney LeVake, currently suing his school district in Faribault, MN, over >his right to teach evolution and "evidence against evolution" has a degree >in "biology education", not biology. Can education schools be brought more > > > > 2 >into the mainstream of scholarship? >2) Work with the state agencies that govern the educational requirements >for teacher certification so that teachers are REQUIRED to have sufficient >science and SAAWOK instruction that they are prepared to do a decent job. >In many states, one can teach high school science without a major in the >field. That's ridiculous. (A publishers representative in Texas once told >me proudly that he knew all of his biology teachers by their first names. >"Coach".) >There are other ways to get more science and SAAWOK (and evolution) into >the system. Improve the tests. >3) Work with the people who write the SAT, ACT and any other "gateway" >exams to be sure that evolution is a prominent theme in the exams, across >the board from astronomy and geology to biology. Use the e-word prominently. >4) Work with the people around the country who write state "exit" exams for >graduating seniors so that knowledge of evolution is required. Teachers >teach to the test, and they are evaluated on how well their students do. >It would be a foolish teacher who omitted evolution if she knew that >students were going to have to know it to get a good grade on their exit >exams. In Florida a few years ago they did it backward: the committee >deciding the exit exam questions decided to drop evolution "because it >wasn't fair to test students on something they weren't being taught." If >that committee had been informed of how important evolution really is in >science, they might have been less likely to make that decision. >5) Work with the people who prepare the tests that teachers have to take to >insure that they know enough to teach science. The Education Trust >recently issued a document analyzing these three kinds of tests. They did >a good job, I think. The science content required for teacher >certification, college admission, and high school exit is pretty dismal -- >and evolution is not systematically included (though it is present in some.) >Improving science ed and the understanding of evolution this way I admit >will be an exhausting task, full of potential disappointments (science >educators are often a touchy lot who don't like "real" scientists telling >them what to do, plus the politics between science educators and other >educators in schools of education are just as bad as those among A&S >departments) and one that will take years. >But this approach is the only one I can think of that is guaranteed to make >a difference in science education. Teachers just flat don't know enough >science or enough about SAAWOK. Evolution is just a piece of this bigger pie. >So that's my two cents worth. I'm off to Kansas for a lecture tour (should >be a lot of fun -- part of my job is to encourage the discouraged faithful, > > > > > > > > 3 >after all) and I won't be getting back to e-mail for a week. I'm more than >happy further to discuss these and other ideas with you in the weeks to >come. Might the NRC appoint a committee to investigate my five ideas and >others for long-term improvement of science education? Needless to say, 1 >greatly appreciate the "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" >and "Science and Creationism" efforts, but they will not produce systemic >changes, which is what is needed. >I'll be seeing Rodger Bybee this weekend (my last BSCS board meeting!) He >knows a LOT more about science educators and the requirements for teacher >certification and testing than I do. >Best, >Eugenic >(ps: while in Iowa this spring, I saw Stan Weinberg. It was sad: he has had >a stroke and his mind is a far cry from the Stan we knew of old. But he >knew me and took pride in NCSE, though he tended to repeat himself a lot. >He seemed happy.) >pps: I am taking the liberty of copying this to Herb Lin, who wrote me with >a similar proposal the other day. >At 09:OO PM 9/3/99 -0500, Maxine Singer wrote: >>Greetings. As you may know, I have become peripherally involved in the mess >>in Kansas. This came about partly because of the meeting I attended in DC >>in July with three members of the Kansas State School Board, organized by >>Jay Labov at the NRC. Then, I had an op-ed piece in the Wash Post on Aug >>18. Nothing new in that that you could not, or would not have written >>yourselves. I had an invitation to do it from Steve Rosenfeld, the person >>who is acting head of the page since Meg Greenfield's death. Then, I >>responded to a letter asking for nominations for a faculty position at >>Kansas State that ironically arrived the day after the op-ed piece. I told >>Professor Conrad that I would not consider nominating anyone because of the >>situation etc. The op-ed and letter are being circulated in Kansas. >>Anyway, all this put the situation to the front of my mind and I started >>thinking what might be done besides talk, which seems to get no where. I >>came up with the following idea. >>University departments generally have full authority over their courses and >>grading. The same seems to be true regarding acceptance of Advance >>Placement status on the basis of AP biology exams given after completion of >>high school AP courses. My idea is to try to put in place, in as many >>universities as possible,nationwide, a policy that denies AP credits to >>students whose high school biology curricula did not include a meaningful >>treatment of evolution, regardless of AP scores. A student might actually > > > > > > > >> 4 >>do pretty well in an AP exam even if she or he were unable to respond >>correctly to questions about evolution. But lacking a good background in >>evolution, one could make the case that the student is not adequately >>prepared for advanced work in biology. Because Biology Departments should >>be in a position to make such determinations independent of any >>all-university committees, it might be politically feasible. I believe >>that in other fields, some faculties have denied AP credit even given >>decent exam scores, for example in mathematics. >>Such a plan would probably have to be supported by the various societies, >>who could then publicize the idea to members. >>Universities that tried to prohibit such a plan would have to deal with the >>issues around faculty governance of academic programs. >>Thus, I think it could catch on and be effective. It would surely attract >>attention, but being rather obscure, perhaps not too much. The point is to >>get high schools to worry about their biology curricula by the inherent >>pressure in such a University Biology Department policy. >>I would very much like to know your reaction to this idea. The problems you >>see in it. Whether you think it is feasible or worthwhile. I have suggested >=-it to Professor Conrad at Kanasa State and he said he would try it out on >>his colleagues. >>thanks, Maxine >>Maxine Singer (assistant: Sharon Bassin) >>Carnegie Institution of Washington >>I530 P Street, NW >>Washington, DC 20005 >>Phone: 202 387-6404 >>Fax: 202 462-7395 >> >> >> >Eugenic C. Scott, Ph.D. >The National Center for Science Education, Inc. >925 Kearney St. >El Cerrito, CA 94530-2810 >510-526-1674 >FAX: 510-526-1675 >800-290-6006 >scott@natcenscied.org >web site: www. natcenscied .orq